diff --git a/2013/06/tiny-nails/index.xhtml b/2013/06/tiny-nails/index.xhtml index d0094ae..01695d0 100644 --- a/2013/06/tiny-nails/index.xhtml +++ b/2013/06/tiny-nails/index.xhtml @@ -120,5 +120,55 @@ +
+
+
+ by + Steven +
+
+
+

2013-06-10 at 15:08

+
+
+

+ This is a great post, I really enjoyed it, and agree with it for the most part. A few comments where I disagree: 1) Google may have recognised that a stressed brain is less creative, but to paint this as a characteristic of a private organisation is misleading. The pressure on the academic community is precisely derived from the privatisation of the formerly-public university system, so how do you account for that? 1b) Labour exploitation in the university is greatest in the sciences, do you advocate greater consciousness among the student body with regard to labour-issues and unionisation? 2) I'm not sure greater accuracy of statistics is the answer in the case of psychology. If they could be more accurate I'm sure they would be: the difficulty here derives from an innate problem in the discipline, which is the attempt to quantify that which is fundamentally unquantifiable. That fact alone will skew the figures the moment you step away from a direct correlation between logic and matter. 2b) Indeed, this emphasis on increase statistical accuracy might even mirror the type of "efficiency" thinking that is pulling apart the university in the first place, don't you agree? Looking forward to more posts, Steven +

+
+
+ + + +
+
+
+ by + Dermot Harnett +
+
+
+

2013-09-24 at 4:15

+
+
+

+ Hi Steven. A belated reply to the above. +

+

+ 1a) Our intention was not to say that the private sector was in general better than the academic sphere in this regard. So no 'accounting for' needs to be done. The point was just that some firms exist which don't feel the need to exert crippling pressure. There is another way.And the fact that private firms are doing that it is stronger evidence than the fact that the public sphere used to do it, because the private sphere has the option of being far more exploitative. +

+

+ 1b) It's difficult to imagine unionization getting off the ground in science for a variety of reasons. At least one half of biologically determined would certainly be in favor of it. +

+

+ 2)The idea that the human mind is fundamentally unquantifiable is a completely separate issue from the statistical problems afflicting it. Psychologists definitely quantify something. And they definitely do so, often, in a way that's statistically bogus. The issue has been well discussed by psychologists and others. One can argue that whatever is being quantified isn't really the human mind, but that's a separate issue. Though for what it's worth, Biologically Determined thinks the human mind is as quantifiable as any other very complex system. +

+

+ 2b)An emphasis on statistical accuracy needn't accompany a disregard for the wider issues involved in psychology. +

+
+
+ + +